John Hick And Richard Swinburne: The Problem Of Evil Argument

Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.

In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments

and ultimately show that the problem of evil does not disprove the existence of God.
Although there are two types of P.O.E. arguments, logical and evidential, I shall address only the evidential version, since it is much more popular. The evidential problem of evil is a form of inductive reasoning that draws from two premises: that “It is very likely that instances of pointless suffering exist” and that “If God exists, all suffering has a point” to form the conclusion “God probably does not exist” (Rauhut 191). The distinguishing factor in this reasoning that it asserts that there are seemingly meaningless or “pointless” cases of suffering. Virtually all theists and atheists agree that suffering occurs, but the point of contention is whether or not that suffering is necessary or meaningful. I feel that there are not necessarily any instances of meaningless suffering, and I will support my stance now.
The ultimate point of evil, as ironic as it seems, is to enhance the value of goodness.

This thesis is shown by John Hick in his article Evil and Soul-Making. As Hick explains, humans already exist in God’s image but have “not yet been formed into the finite likeness of God . . . Man is in the process of becoming the perfected being whom God is seeking to create. However, this is not taking place – it is important to add – by a natural and inevitable evolution, but through a hazardous adventure in individual freedom . . . this involves an accumulation of evil as well as good” (Hick 1-2). In other words, humanity is slowly progressing toward a world in which evil does not exist, as implied by the term “finite likeness of God,” but in order to reach that state, we must first deal with acts of evil, in order to learn what good truly is. On a personal level, this is known as soul-builder

argument.
A crucial part of our voyage to purity is having free will. While God has set us on a course to greatness, he/she/it has given us autonomy, which entails us making bad, wrong, and even evil decisions. Still, I believe, dealing with suffering, a term that I will use interchangeably with “evil,” in exchange for free will and eventual goodness is worth it. Known as the free will defense, this theory holds the following: “God would like to eliminate all suffering of innocent beings but cannot do so without eliminating free will. A world with free beings and suffering is better than a world without suffering but also without free will” (Rauhut 192). The reasoning of the first statement is logically sound, but many people disagree with the second sentence.
On the contrary, evil is what allows us to act benevolently and promote goodness. According to British philosopher Richard Swinburne, there are two types of evil, moral, which includes “all evils caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do,” and natural, “all evil which is not produced by humans beings and which is not allowed by human beings to occur as a result of their negligence” (Rauhut 342). In the case of moral evil, Swinburne says, we can respond to the problem of evil argument with the free will defense. Many people intentionally harm others, including those who seemingly do not deserve to be harmed, but the victims’ suffering does indeed have meaning. As Swinburne later says, the existence of this type of evil provides the privilege to act responsibly. We have the choice to either act responsibly or irresponsibly, to act or benevolently or malevolently.
Even though crimes that happen to good people seem to be unjustified, their justification lies in the purpose they bring to the lives of law enforcement members and in the respect that these individuals receive, which in turn encourages citizens to not just obey the laws but also to act courageously. Acting courageously or benevolently makes people feel good and encourages these kinds of behaviors, which ultimately leads to a more benevolent society. Though our society does not appear to improving, this evolution is not a fast one by any means. God has allowed us to make mistakes with the intention of us learning from them, and it has taken us time to learn.
A second objection to the problem of evil argument is that pure pleasure is not always the most important value in life.

Given my first argument about the good, pleasurable feeling that comes from acting responsibly, this statement probably seems pretty contradictory. However, feel-good experiences serve large purposes than just increasing dopamine levels; they also encourage responsible behavior. In his article Evil and Soul-Making, John Hick uses the metaphor of parenting to show how God is leading humanity to act responsibly. “A parent who loves his children and wants them to become the best human beings they are capable of becoming does not treat pleasure as the sole and supreme value,” he says, “. . . a child brought up on [this principle] would not likely become an ethically mature adult or an attractive or happy personality” (Hick 3). Similarly, Hicks suggests that as the “children of God,” we are given the opportunity to act irresponsibly and have to endure suffering in order to learn responsibility, which God encourages through feel-good experiences (Hick

2).
In essence, the existence of evil gives us two positive elements: responsibility and enjoyment, and just as good cannot exist without evil, enjoyment cannot exist without responsibility. In a world with no evil, we would have no responsibilities and we would become bored rather quickly and not be able to get pleasure out of anything. This principle is especially true with animals, as Swinburne explains: “The good of animals, like that humans, does not consist solely in thrills of pleasure. For animals, too, there are more worthwhile things . . .” Swinburne goes on to say that much of many animals’ lives are spent doing things are directly necessary to survive and to carry on their species, such as building nests, looking for food, and finding a mate (Rauhut 349).
At this point, you might still be wondering how God could allow a good person to contract a terminal disease or how something that is supposedly so good could let a mother put her infant in a microwave. This is where the CORNEA (Condition of Reasonable Epistemic Access) argument comes into play. According to this theory, we, as humans, cannot see the meaning that all suffering has. To use a metaphor from William Rowe, if one were to look through a doorway in search of table in a room full of large objects, he/she might conclude that there is no table in the room (Rowe 151). Likewise, we cannot understand the purpose of certain types of suffering like natural disasters because our knowledge is limited. A common example used here is the case of a fawn that is trapped in a bushfire and suffers for days before dying. It appears that the fawn did nothing to deserve the extreme pain and the early death, but we cannot know that for sure. Furthermore, even if the fawn did not deserve to die, it is possible, as callous as it sounds, that its death served some greater purpose that we are not aware of. The same can be said of children who die young. Their deaths appear to be extremely unfair, but death can also bring families together and make family members better appreciate their relatives who are still around.
Still, it seems cruel of God to take innocent lives for such disproportionate means. Regardless of whether an infant who dies of Leukemia goes to Heaven and whether or not her death brings her family closer together, her dying still causes tremendous suffering for her and her loved ones. Nevertheless, we should remember that by the characteristics of God, as all-good, omniscient, and omnipotent, it is prima facie true that this suffering is not pointless.
Now, the existence of this type of god can be debated further, and if this god does not exist, the suffering can be considered pointless, but as a general piece of evidence for the existence of God, I would like to close with the cosmological argument. According to this theory, the existence of our universe is evidence of the existence of a necessarily-existing being, i.e. God (Rauhut 160). If this theory is correct, it proves the existence of an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful god. God was powerful enough to create our universe, presumably knows everything about his/her/its creation, and was kind enough to allow us to live in this universe. Of course, our existence entails evil, but that is the result of our liberty and autonomy and the cause of what I believe to be our eventual enlightenment.
To many people, evil is viewed as a problem, something that needs to be fixed. This is so obvious that the phrases “evil,” “bad,” and “problem” are nearly synonymous. While we should strive to do away with evil, evil’s existence is a solution, a solution that allows our freedom to make mistakes and to learn from them, which is what life is all about.